Q&A.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Repair/Replacement of Hydraulic Actuator
- Solicitation number
- N6893617T0085
About this file
Q&A
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 17-T-0085_RFQ_Solicitation_Amendment.docx | DOCX document | |
| 17-T-0085_RFQ_Solicitation.docx | DOCX document | |
| Photos.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ACUTRONIC has the following questions related to this solicitation:
1. Item 0001 is for "REPAIR/REPLACE ACTUATOR". Can you please clarify if this includes the evaluation? All necessary steps should be accounted for and quoted to perform any repair and/or replacement of the equipment per the SOW and pictures provided.
2. Item 0001 is for "REPAIR/REPLACE ACTUATOR". Can you please clarify if this includes travel costs for the repair/replacement effort? This is the responsibility of the business quoting to cover all costs associated with a repair and or replacement of the equipment.
3. Item 0002 is for "ONSITE SERVICE". Can you please clarify if this is the evaluation, or if this is the costs associated with being on site to repair/replace the actuators? Depending on how you believe you will need to quote to get the repair or replacement of the equipment done, then this could mean both, or only one. The quote can be structured in any form as long as it covers the entire process as this will be a Firm Fixed Price order.
4. Is the Government asking for a FFP price for both the evaluation and eventual repair/replacement at this time? One would think the findings from the evaluation would affect the level of effort (and cost) required to repair, or potentially even replace the actuator. A simple repair, such as a damaged seal, would be much less expensive than a replacement, which makes it difficult to provide a FFP for item 0001. As stated this is an urgent requirement and time is of the essence we are looking for a quote to either repair or replace actuators under the Simplified Acquisition process as a FFP type order. Please submit your best and final quote.
5. Is the 3-axis hydraulic rate table operational today, or are the leaks prominent enough that it is not operable? The table is not operational due to the amount of hydraulic fluid leakage at the pitch actuator.
6. If the 3-axis hydraulic rate table is operational today, does the Government expect to operate the system between the evaluation and repair/replacement? No. We expect the table to be non-operational until reinstallation of the actuators.
7. Has the 3-axis hydraulic rate table ever achieved the performance specifications in Table 1? Yes.
8. If yes, when was the last time the 3-axis hydraulic rate table achieved the performance specifications in Table 1? Initial Acceptance testing for the rebuilt table in 2010, yaw axis repair acceptance testing in 2013 and 2015. Operational security does not allow us to discuss performance metrics during actual use of the table.
9. Is the evaluation of the pitch actuators expected to occur on site at the Navy facility at China Lake? Not necessarily. Depends on how you quote for the repair or replacement.
10. Can the Government please clarify if one, or both pitch actuators are currently leaking? Currently only one is leaking.
11. Can the Government please identify where each actuator is leaking from? It is leaking out of the weep hole on one actuator.
12. Can the Government please share what work has previously been performed to attempt to fix the pitch axis actuator leaks? Since installation at China Lake, the actuators have only had seal replacement maintenance performed.
13. Does the Government own a drawing package for the original Carco pitch actuators? We possess no detailed drawings specific to the original Carco pitch actuators, with the exception of the actuators as a part of the greater assembly of the table.
14. Will the contractor have access to overhead lifting equipment that would be suitable to support the actuators during removal and re-installation? No overhead lifting equipment is in the lab. A portable crane can be made available if needed, but it requires installation and removal of floor support and effort to move the crane in the lab (contractor may need more than one person).
15. During previous maintenance how has the inner axis been stabilized? Maintenance performed on the pitch actuators in the past only required removing one at a time and not both. The installed pitch axis brake held the axis stable while an actuator was removed. It is presumed that both may need to be removed for this incident.
16. Can the Government please share the part numbers of the ANSI rated fall protection harnesses and arresting straps Government personnel use while working in the vicinity of the table? Any fall protection safety equipment that is ANSI Z359 rated is acceptable. The lanyards used in the facility are 6ft arresting lanyards. Most places that sell safety equipment list the ANSI ratings, and the government has no specific manufacturer preference beyond meeting the ANSI Z359 rating specification for fall protection equipment.
17. Is the contractor expected to provide a 200 in-lb-sec^2 test load, or will this be furnished by the government? The government has the test load provided by the table remanufacturer available for use during testing.
18. What does the government mean by "certified to perform" in 2.7? In the past, the contractor has sent out an electronic technician that brought a computer with software that was used to verify proper operation of the table through harmonic testing, tuning, and verification of the requirements via the acceptance test. This software is not resident on the Aero4000 motion controller so it is assumed that the person that has this software has been trained to interface with the Aero4000 motion controller parts and use the software to perform the necessary tests to verify operation and performance of the table movement.
19. Is the Government able to provide an operator of the Aero4000 motion controller? This has been done previously at other Government HIL labs, and potentially could allow the Contractor to send one person on site versus two people, resulting in a cost savings to the Government. The government can supply an operator for the Aero4000 motion controller. However, operators are only trained to operate within the scope of utilization for the purposes of the lab operation and have not been trained in extensive troubleshooting or testing of the table.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .